It?s Crunch Time for Israel on Iran

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Anyone who doesn't believe that Israel will ensure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon is not a knowledgeable student of history.

What is Israel waiting for? Their balls to drop?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Sure, Iran hasn't been feverishly pursuing nuclear weapons and repeatedly threatening to wipe out the US, Israel, etc with said nuclear weapons.

:roll:

Link, pretty please?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: lupi

Lol, invading gaza. I guess you have op ed articles ready to go for the US regularly invading virginia and california.

It wasn't Virginia or California, troll boy. It was New York. :shocked:

Bush Weighed Using Military in Arrests

By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: July 24, 2009

WASHINGTON ? Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda, according to former administration officials.

?

Above shortened for brevity.

Since this never happened, what does it have to do with anything, troll.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
June 23, 2008

Bolton: Link

An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy

and

I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later

Google this guy, he's been wanking to the idea of Israel attacking Iran for literally years now. He's a broken record. Not to say Israel won't eventually attack Iran, as a broken clock is right sometimes, too, but this guy is a huge war hawk.

Bolton is NOT a huge war hawk!! Bolton is a realists!!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: lupi

Lol, invading gaza. I guess you have op ed articles ready to go for the US regularly invading virginia and california.

It wasn't Virginia or California, troll boy. It was New York. :shocked:

Bush Weighed Using Military in Arrests

By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: July 24, 2009

WASHINGTON ? Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda, according to former administration officials.

?

Above shortened for brevity.

Since this never happened, what does it have to do with anything, troll.

dphantom's post noted for stupidity.

1. My post was in direct response to lupi's idiotic reference to "the US regularly invading virginia and california."

2. Israel hasn't attacked Iran, either... YET! That's the subject of this discussion.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Israel attacking Iran would be an unprovoked act of war and would make Israel into a pariah state.

As for John Bolton, he is a card carrying nut case even the then republican dominated Senate rejected as an idiot.

GWB snuck him in as UN ambassador using a recess appointment, where he proceeded to act like an idiot, playing the attendance police with senior diplomats all over the world. The UN was very glad to get rid of John Bolton and so am I.

All this thread does in invoke bad memories from a very not credable fellow.

All this is coming from somebody who absolutely with glee I might add believes that Israel is the problem in the middle east?
Any and all credibility you had with those of us who are Jew`s has been thrown out the window. Especially when you side with the likes of IRAN!!

Actually if Israel attacked Iran it would NOT be an unprovoked act of war-- seeing as how the paper tiger Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has over and over stated what he would like to do to the Israeli`s.....seeing the paper tiger become the nuclear tiger would have the whole middle east scrambling for nuclear weapons and possibly even silently supporting Israel when they do a pre-emptive strike!

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Wow, really? Are you so lazy that you can't Google it yourself? Or do you not want to try because it would wake you up to reality?

Here, I'll do the work for you...a few links I found within like five seconds of searching.

Ahmadinejad: Iran will "bring down" Western foes

Claiming Iran will bring down global arrogance with "a new wave of revolutionary thinking" isn't the same thing as vowing to obliterate us, and neither is vowing to fend off those "interfering in its internal affairs".

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Ahmadinejad says Israel will soon disappear

Perdicting the fall of the current US and Israeli regimines doesn't rightly match your claim either.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
While Iran does has a nuclear program, its stated purpose is the peacetime use for electrical power generation.

There is zero proof the Iran wants nuclear weapons and the go or no go point for Iranian nukes is still years into the future.

Because Iran has approval from the IAEA, their program is and remains UN approved.

And unlike Syria or Iraq, Iran has many deeply buried nuclear facilities, making any Israeli attack very difficult if not impossible unless Israel is willing to use nukes.

But if Israel attacks anyway, the US and Obama will have no choice but to cut off all foreign aid to Israel, while Israel would face an international trade embargo that would collapse its own economy.

Once again -- All this is coming from somebody who absolutely with glee I might add believes that Israel is the problem in the middle east?
Any and all credibility you had with those of us who are Jew`s has been thrown out the window. Especially when you side with the likes of IRAN!!

You actually 100% believe with all your heart that if israel attacks Iran, the US and Obama will have no choice but to cut off all foreign aid to Israel, while Israel would face an international trade embargo that would collapse its own economy?

Now we both know that you wish for the demise of israel but you forget so many things concerning the past before Israel and the US became friends!

Israel was doing just fine without our direct intervention in that part of the woeld.

If anything the relationship that we Israeli`s have with the US has made our will and desire weaker because we have "Big brother" as an allie.
It has made our military weaker and for sure more apathetic.

You see when you have to go it alone, when war happens, you must be pro-actively agressive in everyway. As a nation we have not been actively as agressive as we should have been since 1967.....

To be fair as I pointed out in another thread what does any of us know about creating a lasting peace in that region of the world?

Yet you would have the whole world be subserviant to the United Nations, which we all know is a joke and should be dismantled.

I find what you have to say to be perplexing because I thought you were smarter than that.....

Now as an American - Never mind that you actually believe that speak for the US and Obama on this subject....
I would bet you that the US will never turn its back on Israel!
That`s just a guess mind you!!

Shalom!

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dphantom
1967 is the only war Israel started and was a premeptive strike before those states you listed could invade which they were within days of doing. 1973, Israel did not prempt and was almost overrun. The various Lebanon/Gaza incursions were all in retaliation for others starting the war, not Israel.

The 1973 war was a surprise attack by the Arab states, but in 1967 Israel had been threatening to invade Syria long before attacking it along with Egypt and Jordan. Before that was 1956 which was a surprise attack by Israel on Egypt, and back in 1948 Zionist militias were ethnically cleansing Palestinians from both sides of the UN partition when the Arab states stepped in. As for the various Lebanon/Gaza incursions there was plenty of aggression on both sides, attempting to absolve Israel of blame is absurd.

 

[Lemon law]

To JEDIYoda,

I have no more love for Achmadinjad than you do, but he has no real power inside of Iran. Unlike our Preident, the Iranian President has no real power and can be removed by the religious authorities. And for all of Achmadinejad's flaming rhetoric, from the Israeli point of view distorted by Israeli propaganda, he can shoot off his mouth, but its still words will never hurt Israel.

But Iran is Used to being lied about, as you recall, GWB falsely accused Iran of arming Iraqi insurgents. But unlike Iraq, Iran is no paper tiger, a lesson they learned when Iraq invaded them and they could not buy the arms to defend themselves. And now Iran has a thriving home grown arms industry able to manufacture state of the arts shoulder carried rockets that can take out any land based military vehicle in the world among other weapons.

We got a tiny peek at what Iran has in terms of the good stuff in 2005 in Lebanon. When Hezzbollah accidentally got a hold of a small shipment intended for Syria. And we saw a few ill trained Hezbollah fighters use those weapons to take out state of the arts Israel tanks as Israeli armor spent two weeks only advancing 20 miles. And the results would have been the same in Gaza in 2008, except Gaza got none of the Iranian good stuff.

And maybe some of you pro Israeli fan boys better think long and hard about Israel attacking Iran, because Iran is likely to flood every rag tag anti Israeli terrorists groups with state of the arts Iranian weapons. Suddenly changing the hunted terrorists, into the hunters, able to penetrate Israel borders from all points of the compass, and creating havock on the Israeli civilian population while stopping any land based vehicle sent to stop them. And Iran as the attacked party would be perfectly justified in doing so. And once inside of Israeli territory, all Israeli air power can do is bomb their own civilians in the process.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg on Iranian options, such ana attack would be their Pearl harbor, as 80 million hopping mad Iranians would be saying drive all Israelis into the sea. And since you have to look under the bellies of snakes to find any Israeli support in the mid-east, its also likely to ignite a total Jehad of Arabs joining in. Any Arab leader who ignores that ground swell is unlikely to retain power.

Careful about what you wish for, because no matter what, its going to be a blood bath for all sides.

 

[themusgrat]

You're right, it will be a blood bath, but I can also see Israel's point of view. The president of Iran might not have much power, but if tomorrow you handed him the means to wipe out Israel, he'd go for it. The whole region has always been between neutral and outright hostile to Israel. If Israel thinks that a strike to remove Iran's nuclear program will significantly make their people safer in the long run, which is actually a pretty good bet, then there's a good chance they'll do it.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To JEDIYoda,
Yada yada yada.

FUD.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: lupi

Lol, invading gaza. I guess you have op ed articles ready to go for the US regularly invading virginia and california.

It wasn't Virginia or California, troll boy. It was New York. :shocked:

Bush Weighed Using Military in Arrests

By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: July 24, 2009

WASHINGTON ? Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda, according to former administration officials.

Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the terrorism suspects, who came to be known as the Lackawanna Six, and declare them enemy combatants.

Mr. Bush ultimately decided against the proposal to use military force.

A decision to dispatch troops into the streets to make arrests has few precedents in American history, as both the Constitution and subsequent laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.

The Fourth Amendment bans ?unreasonable? searches and seizures without probable cause. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from acting in a law enforcement capacity.

In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.

?The president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,? the memorandum said.

The memorandum ? written by the lawyers John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty ? was directed to Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, who had asked the department about a president?s authority to use the military to combat terrorist activities in the United States.

The memorandum was declassified in March. But the White House debate about the Lackawanna group is the first evidence that top American officials, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, actually considered using the document to justify deploying the military into an American town to make arrests.

Most former officials interviewed for this article spoke only on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations about the case involved classified information. They agreed to talk about the internal discussions only after the memorandum was released earlier this year.

New information has recently emerged about the deliberations and divisions in the administration over some of the most controversial policies after the Sept. 11 attacks, like the decision to use brutal interrogation methods on Qaeda detainees.

Former officials in the administration said this debate was not as bitter as others during Mr. Bush?s first term. The discussions did not proceed far enough to put military units on alert.

Still, at least one high-level meeting was convened to debate the issue, at which several top Bush aides argued firmly against the proposal to use the military, advanced by Mr. Cheney, his legal adviser David S. Addington and some senior Defense Department officials.

Among those in opposition were Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser; John B. Bellinger III, the top lawyer at the National Security Council; Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Michael Chertoff, then the head of the Justice Department?s criminal division.

?Frankly, it was a bit of a turf war,? said one former senior administration official. ?For a number of people, crossing the line of having intelligence or military activities inside the United States was not worth the risk.?

Mr. Bush ended up ordering the F.B.I. to make the arrests in Lackawanna, near Buffalo, where the agency had been monitoring a group of Yemeni Americans with suspected Qaeda ties. The five men arrested there in September 2002, and a sixth arrested nearly simultaneously in Bahrain, pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges.

Scott L. Silliman, a Duke University law professor specializing in national security law, said an American president had not deployed the active-duty military on domestic soil in a law enforcement capacity, without specific statutory authority, since the Civil War.

Senior military officials were never consulted, former officials said. Richard B. Myers, a retired general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview that he was unaware of the discussion.

Former officials said the 2002 debate arose partly from Justice Department concerns that there might not be enough evidence to arrest and successfully prosecute the suspects in Lackawanna. Mr. Cheney, the officials said, had argued that the administration would need a lower threshold of evidence to declare them enemy combatants and keep them in military custody.

Earlier that summer, the administration designated Jose Padilla an enemy combatant and sent him to a military brig in South Carolina. Mr. Padilla was arrested by civilian agencies on suspicion of plotting an attack using a radioactive bomb.

Those who advocated using the military to arrest the Lackawanna group had legal ammunition: the memorandum by Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty.

The lawyers, in the Justice Department?s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote that the Constitution, the courts and Congress had recognized a president?s authority ?to take military actions, domestic as well as foreign, if he determines such actions to be necessary to respond to the terrorist attacks upon the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, and before.?

The document added that the neither the Posse Comitatus Act nor the Fourth Amendment tied a president?s hands.

Despite this guidance, some Bush aides bristled at the prospect of troops descending on an American suburb to arrest terrorism suspects.

?What would it look like to have the American military go into an American town and knock on people?s door?? said a second former official in the debate.

Chief James L. Michel of the Lackawanna police agreed. ?If we had tanks rolling down the streets of our city,? Chief Michel said, ?we would have had pandemonium down here.?

The Lackawanna case was the first after the Sept. 11 attacks in which American intelligence and law enforcement operatives believed they had dismantled a Qaeda cell in the United States.

In the months before the arrests, Mr. Bush was regularly briefed on the case by Mr. Mueller of the F.B.I. and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence. The C.I.A. had been tracking the overseas contacts of the Lackawanna group.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed article in March, Mr. Yoo defended his 2001 memorandum and its reasoning, saying that after Sept. 11 the Bush administration faced the real prospect of Qaeda cells undertaking attacks on American soil. ?The possibility of such attacks raised difficult, fundamental questions of constitutional law,? he wrote, ?because they might require domestic military operations against an enemy for the first time since the Civil War.?

Here are portions of that memo:

Nor is it necessary that the military forces on our soil be foreign. Suppose that an armed and violent group of United States citizens seized control of a part of the country during the Civil War. Federal Armed Forces must be free to use force to put down this insurrection without being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, even though force would be intentionally directed against persons known to be citizens.
.
.
In light of the well-settled understanding that constitutional constraints must give way in some respects to the exigencies of war, we think that the better view is that the Fourh Amendment does not apply to domestic military operations designed to deter and prevent further terrorist attacks.
.
.
First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.

Like his bosses, your thankfully EX-Traitor In Cheif and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals, John Yoo is a perverted, facist dictatorial piece of shit who doesn't understand that the test of our system of government is how it works to preserve our rights under the worst of times. It is NOT a system to be casually discarded at the whim of a dictatorial leadership. :thumbsdown: :|

Wow, you're really running low on braincell fumes today aren't ya. Not only did I not remember that story, but you can take your traitor in chief crap and place it where you always want those lips since I don't ever recall voting for him.

But nice way to hop onto a covnersation late, miss the meaning and look like a fool.

 

[Lemon law]

Only fools do not have any FUD, even Yamamoto, the author of the pearl harbor attack, pointed out that attack would light a fire under a vast boiler able to generate unlimited power. Even though Yamamoto died two years before his FUD was proved right, Yamamoto, as a poker player par excellence was proved right.

Like Japan who had never been defeated, Israel may be on a roll, but 275 million to six million is damn long odds. We have to ask if Israel can sustain itself by pissing off all its neighbors and building and building the hatreds.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Here, I'll do the work for you...a few links I found within like five seconds of searching.

Nothing you linked mentions anything about "threatening to wipe out the US, Israel, etc with said nuclear weapons".

Bzzzzzttt...try again.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Here, I'll do the work for you...a few links I found within like five seconds of searching.

Nothing you linked mentions anything about "threatening to wipe out the US, Israel, etc with said nuclear weapons".

Bzzzzzttt...try again.

we both know that in actuality the weapon of choice was NOT mentioned. It never was!!

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To JEDIYoda,
Yada yada yada.

FUD.

Why do you say that? You really think the "Islamist" response wouldn't be serious?

And do you actually believe Israel would use nuclear weapons against Iranian targets???

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To JEDIYoda,
Yada yada yada.

FUD.

Why do you say that? You really think the "Islamist" response wouldn't be serious?

And do you actually believe Israel would use nuclear weapons against Iranian targets???

Iranian Military Training For Post Nuclear World

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
You're right, it will be a blood bath, but I can also see Israel's point of view. The president of Iran might not have much power, but if tomorrow you handed him the means to wipe out Israel, he'd go for it. The whole region has always been between neutral and outright hostile to Israel. If Israel thinks that a strike to remove Iran's nuclear program will significantly make their people safer in the long run, which is actually a pretty good bet, then there's a good chance they'll do it.

So if Iran thinks that a strike to remove Israel's nuclear program will significantly make their people safer in the long run, which is actually a pretty good bet, then it's OK to attack Israel?

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe that with freedom comes responsibility. I also believe that there are such things in reality as being sane and insane, that they are objective and absolute realities and that things aren't all relative. That means to me that when a nation seeks nuclear power the relative sanity of that nation has to be a factor in how other nations deal with that desire.

I happen to love the Iranian people and think that down the line they have a tremendous future, but I also think the Mullahs there are lunatic mad men. So what do you do, and how do you deal with a country whose people are great but whose leaders are basically monsters? What do you do with folk who want to settle issues in a higher court, who may happily die to kill you.

This kind of thinking is tremendously dangerous because everybody turns everybody else into boogie men. But I am still persuaded that the Iranian leadership is a bunch of religious fanatical nuts.

I really lean to the notion we can't allow them to become a credible nuclear threat. Then don't pass the responsibility test, in my opinion. Sad, but that's how I see it.

The question then becomes what do you do especially when things get worse the longer you wait.

Seems like you are forced to bomb their facilities with all the attendant rage that will create both in Iran and elsewhere.

So I think that if I were going to do it I would announce it and tell the Iranian people they have a deadline in which they must remove their leaders or get as far away as possible from the facilities. We could tell them we love them but that mad men can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons and that's just how it is.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
You can call it all you want but the truth is clearly visible. Israel is not a problem. Iran is.

They were such bullies...right. They were such bullies that nobody else cared they had nukes. It wasn't until Iran started talking about their nuclear program that everyone else had to have one, too. Nobody cares if Israel has them, because they know they're moderate, not crazy Islamic nutjobs (Iran).

While you obviously would like to pretend otherwise, here is a brief history of others concern with Israel's nukes, for those who prefer reality. And sure, Iran is run by Muslim clerics, but it is Israel's Prime Minster and his stenographers invoking the Biblical boogieman of "Alamek" in their rhetoric against Iran.

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Google this guy, he's been wanking to the idea of Israel attacking Iran for literally years now. He's a broken record. Not to say Israel won't eventually attack Iran, as a broken clock is right sometimes, too, but this guy is a huge war hawk.

That isn't even the half of it. He was one of the big players in luring us into invading Iraq, and was trying to goad us into confrontations with Cuba and Syria too.

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Sure, Iran hasn't been feverishly pursuing nuclear weapons and repeatedly threatening to wipe out the US, Israel, etc with said nuclear weapons.

Right, they really haven't.

Siting wikipedia for intensely political histories? Puh-lease. Other source looks pretty biased too.

 

[Lemon law]

Every country has its leaders, some better than other and every once in a while every country get a real nut.

Admadinejad will be out of office before Iran ever has nuclear weapons and as nutty as Admadinejad was, he is far saner and mature than GWB. Admadinejad just shot off his mouth and did little, and GWB did all the nutty things like starting two quagmires, bungling everything he touched, and damn near melting down the entire world economy without talking much.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: themusgrat
You're right, it will be a blood bath, but I can also see Israel's point of view. The president of Iran might not have much power, but if tomorrow you handed him the means to wipe out Israel, he'd go for it. The whole region has always been between neutral and outright hostile to Israel. If Israel thinks that a strike to remove Iran's nuclear program will significantly make their people safer in the long run, which is actually a pretty good bet, then there's a good chance they'll do it.

So if Iran thinks that a strike to remove Israel's nuclear program will significantly make their people safer in the long run, which is actually a pretty good bet, then it's OK to attack Israel?

It's not a good bet, because Israel knows they can't take the whole middle east. They have to try very hard to just survive as it is. The point was not really that it would be ok for Israel to attack Iran, the point was that Iran has a history of saying stuff like "we want to kill every jew on the planet." Given that, it's not in Israel's best interests, or ours, or anyone else's for that matter, for Iran to have nuclear weapons. It's a very unstable country that's proven that it is often not capable of rational thought.

On the other hand, Israel cannot get away with saying things like "we want to kill every Muslim on the planet," can they? They know their place, and for the most part they just do whatever they have to to survive. Don't be daft, you know all of this very well.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Skoorb
June 23, 2008

Bolton: Link

An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy

and

I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later

Google this guy, he's been wanking to the idea of Israel attacking Iran for literally years now. He's a broken record. Not to say Israel won't eventually attack Iran, as a broken clock is right sometimes, too, but this guy is a huge war hawk.

Bolton is NOT a huge war hawk!! Bolton is a realists!!

Then fuck his (and your) reality. There is absolutely no reason to continue on with the policies of the last 8 years that are partly why half the planet hates us now.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I believe that with freedom comes responsibility. I also believe that there are such things in reality as being sane and insane, that they are objective and absolute realities and that things aren't all relative. That means to me that when a nation seeks nuclear power the relative sanity of that nation has to be a factor in how other nations deal with that desire.

I happen to love the Iranian people and think that down the line they have a tremendous future, but I also think the Mullahs there are lunatic mad men. So what do you do, and how do you deal with a country whose people are great but whose leaders are basically monsters? What do you do with folk who want to settle issues in a higher court, who may happily die to kill you.

There aren't any Mullahs in Iran...that's a Sunni thing.

Right wing Zionist nuts are scarier than the Ayatollahs. How many wars are the Ayotollahs responsible for? Other than defending themselves against Iraq, 0. They're very mystical in their practice of their religion, and very old school, and that's about it. Islamic extremists get to share crazy with their neighbors over tea or coffee, Zionist extremists want to bring about the apocalypse. Now how many military incursions is Zionism responsible for?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To JEDIYoda,
Yada yada yada.

FUD.

Yeah, Lemon Law detests anything that could show Israel in a positive light.